Author Topic: Mark VII Landing Craft Deck Plans (Read 8444 times)

Daryk · « **on:** 13 December 2015, 10:54:20 »

This weekend, I started putting together deck plans for an Egret variant for my non-canon unit, and realized how easy it would be to convert it back to a stock Mark VII (the delete key is your friend). The reason I included art on the plans is that I discovered the original art couldn't support the 14x8x5 meter dimensions of the cargo bay stated in the text. So I chopped the art in half, trimmed the wings and broadened and lengthened the fuselage to accommodate the cargo bay while keeping the overall width at about 20 meters. Then I squashed the nose section down to maintain the overall length at about 21.5 meters, broadening it as necessary to match the rest of the fuselage.

On the plans themselves:

- The airlock is as large as it is to accommodate the Egret variant (which cuts the cargo bay in half vertically to put in an infantry bay and stuffs an exoskeleton bay in the other half of the airlock). The extra space can be used as storage on the stock variant.
- The crew quarters have two double bunks and a locker for each.
- The head is cramped with one shower, one toilet, and one sink.
- The kitchen is even more crowded with a small sink, stove, refrigerator/freezer, and two work surfaces (one opposite the sink, the other between the sink and stove).
- The cockpit has seats for all four crew (which I believe work out to Pilot, Co-Pilot, Gunner/Load Master and Flight Engineer)
- The "engineering" section is where the spare parts are stored, and is reached by a recessed ladder from the cargo bay.

I still have a few details to work out on the Egret variant, but will post it to the Double Deuce thread in the Non-Canon Units forum when I finish it. I'm also close to finishing "stock" plans of the Manatee I made for that game, and will post those in this forum when I get time. My next big project will be plans for the unit's associated Scout JumpShip.

EDIT: I completely forgot to mention the scale on the grid is 50 cm (half a meter).

EDIT2: I realized I forgot to stretch the art of the elevation to accommodate the 5m tall cargo bay, and added a scale to the drawing itself.

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #1 on:** 13 December 2015, 13:55:49 »

This is really cool! Thanks for sharing!

Daryk · « **Reply #2 on:** 13 December 2015, 14:54:25 »

You're very welcome! Unfortunately, Visio ate one of the decks of the Manatee this morning, and I've been re-creating it since. It may be a while before I can post those plans.

Red Pins · « **Reply #3 on:** 13 December 2015, 21:23:16 »

Oh, another one! Thank you!

Daryk · « **Reply #4 on:** 13 December 2015, 22:09:28 »

This was actually the first I posted today, but you're more than welcome! I'm still tweaking my Egret variant, but that should be up later this week, and I'll post a link here when I do.

Daryk · « **Reply #5 on:** 14 December 2015, 19:43:48 »

I just realized I forgot to mention the scale on the grid is 50cm (half a meter) per square. I edited it into the first post so nobody new will miss it.

Daryk · « **Reply #6 on:** 29 December 2015, 19:19:08 »

I've posted the plans for an Egret variant here. As the only stats I could find for Egrets said only "10 tons of fuel for a reduced cargo capacity", I took liberties.

My variant has bunks for a full ComStar Level I foot infantry unit and an exoskeleton bay in the air lock. This reduced the cargo bay to 50 tons, which I made a light vehicle bay as well. All quarters are taken out of the tonnage for bunks provided by the bays (a grand total of 42, which is not enough to actually embark the vehicle crew in addition to the Level I without hot racking). Compared to the stock Mark VII plans, the crew quarters gained two more bunks (making the double bunks triples) while the infantry bay consists of 36 bunks, all triple stacked in the top half of the old cargo bay. The new cargo bay has the same length and breadth, but the height has been cut roughly in half to accommodate the infantry spaces, which include a second (larger) head, galley, and storage space for additional food. The concept of cramming an additional 38 people through the existing crew head and galley was simply untenable. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough tonnage to match the fuel and food endurance, which would mean a unit trying to stuff the craft to capacity would need to bring additional food along in either the exoskeleton or vehicle bays. That's of course in addition to any extra fuel required to do an actual planetary excursion and return, since 10 tons doesn't go very far.

Daryk · « **Reply #7 on:** 31 December 2015, 23:13:49 »

I realized this evening I had forgotten to vertically stretch the art of the elevation to accommodate the 5m tall cargo bay. To say it makes the craft look dumpy is an understatement. I've reloaded both the plans here, and for the Egret variant on its page. Apologies to the 43 folks who downloaded the stock Mark VII plans already, and the two who grabbed the variant before the fix. Since I was reloading the drawings anyway, I added a scale to both.

The_Caveman · « **Reply #8 on:** 01 January 2016, 02:43:49 »

It looks good, but I'm trying to figure out where the fusion engine and fuel tanks are supposed to go?

Daryk · « **Reply #9 on:** 01 January 2016, 08:09:17 »

The engine and fuel tanks would be outside the pressure hull. As in most large modern aircraft, the fuel will be in the wings, along with the vertical thrusters. I figure the lateral thruster is below the spare parts closet at the back of the cargo bay. Water tanks, life support and other auxiliary equipment would be crammed in the space under the crew quarters forward of the air lock.

The_Caveman · « **Reply #10 on:** 01 January 2016, 10:25:37 »

Quote from: Daryk on 01 January 2016, 08:09:17

The engine and fuel tanks would be outside the pressure hull. As in most large modern aircraft, the fuel will be in the wings, along with the vertical thrusters. I figure the lateral thruster is below the spare parts closet at the back of the cargo bay. Water tanks, life support and other auxiliary equipment would be crammed in the space under the crew quarters forward of the air lock.

Except the thing's wings are paper thin and wouldn't have room for even the small fuel supplies of BattleTech spacecraft--that fuel is unfortunately hydrogen, which even in liquid form is quite bulky. You might need to photoshop the wings to be thicker.

And if the engine is squeezed into the space behind the cargo bay, where does the cargo loading door go?

Daryk · « **Reply #11 on:** 01 January 2016, 11:34:39 »

The floor of the cargo bay is the door. The whole thing drops five meters (and a little bit for clearance). When I stretched the elevation image vertically, that should have thickened the wings a bit. Per my 3057, the stock Mark VII only has three tons of fuel. At about 14 m³ per ton, there should be more than enough room in the wings. The Egret probably has a problem, but I may just have to chalk that up to the art not being accurate to begin with.

Daryk · « **Reply #12 on:** 15 August 2016, 18:31:29 »

A recent ruling invalidates using bay quality quarters for Small Craft crew, making this design somewhat problematic if you're using RAW. If you're willing to house rule that aspect, or house rule a smaller vehicle bay, this could still work for you.

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #13 on:** 15 August 2016, 19:27:57 »

Quote from: Daryk on 15 August 2016, 18:31:29

A recent ruling invalidates using bay quality quarters for Small Craft crew, making this design somewhat problematic if you're using RAW. If you're willing to house rule that aspect, or house rule a smaller vehicle bay, this could still work for you.

Not sure what you mean by bay quarters for Small Craft Crews?

Daryk · « **Reply #14 on:** 15 August 2016, 19:58:29 »

Previously, there was enough ambiguity in the design rules to allow use of infantry bays to house crews for space ships. That is no longer the case.

Fireangel · « **Reply #15 on:** 16 August 2016, 11:05:14 »

The DS&JS (pp. 70-1) Mk. VII Landing Craft:


Tonnage: 100
   Thrust:     4
   Max Thrust: 6
SI:            6         0.0 tons
Heat Sinks: 10 (single)  0.0 tons
Engine: 200 SFE          8.5 tons
Fuel: (240 TW/TM pt.)    3.0 tons
Cockpit:                 3.0 tons
Armor:                  14.5 tons
Armament:
   LRM-5 (RW)            2.0 tons
     Ammo: 24 (LRM-5)    1.0 ton
   Medium Laser (LW)     1.0 ton
   Medium Laser (Aft)    1.0 ton
   2x Small Laser (nose) 1.0 ton
Cargo:                  65.0 tons
                TOTAL: 100.0 tons

* The Mk. VII has no transit drive.
* It does have a crew of 2, but a rumble seat quirk can justify this. As an ASF, it does not require crew quarters.
* The asymmetric weapon loadout can be redistributed.
* Since it is built with ASF rules, it can carry external ordnance, as stated in fluff.

As a shameless plug, here's a link to my version of the Aliens UD-4L Cheyenne, which includes an interesting discussion that might be tangentially relevant for the Mk. VII.

Daryk · « **Reply #16 on:** 16 August 2016, 17:33:22 »

Useful (and I really like your Cheyenne design), but the deck plans I drew up were based on using infantry bay quality quarters, so the plans are still problematic for anyone using RAW. If they're using house rules, no problems at all...

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #17 on:** 16 August 2016, 18:25:27 »

Quote from: Daryk on 15 August 2016, 19:58:29

Previously, there was enough ambiguity in the design rules to allow use of infantry bays to house crews for space ships. That is no longer the case.

Clarification; do you mean as in using the infantry bay to house the vessel's crew or something else?

Daryk · « **Reply #18 on:** 16 August 2016, 18:56:39 »

That's exactly what I mean, yes.

mikecj · « **Reply #19 on:** 16 August 2016, 21:47:14 »

Thank you!

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #20 on:** 18 August 2016, 07:05:00 »

Quote from: Daryk on 16 August 2016, 18:56:39

That's exactly what I mean, yes.

Hm. That is kinda greasy. You can still reduce crew quarter size though.

Using an infantry bay is plausible though.

Daryk · « **Reply #21 on:** 18 August 2016, 19:04:24 »

Plausible, yes, but no longer a valid interpretation of RAW, unfortunately.

DOC_Agren · « **Reply #22 on:** 18 August 2016, 20:01:54 »

Mark VII should be "passed into" retirement and a new design should fill it role. Since it no longer can do what it "could" like when it lost it 65 ton cargo bay. >:(

Daryk · « **Reply #23 on:** 18 August 2016, 20:09:16 »

The simplest thing to do is simply re-issue the fighter design. It works now that they restored the ability of fighters to carry cargo.

DOC_Agren · « **Reply #24 on:** 18 August 2016, 22:39:09 »

Quote from: Daryk on 18 August 2016, 20:09:16

The simplest thing to do is simply re-issue the fighter design. It works now that they restored the ability of fighters to carry cargo.

I didn't catch that O0 :D [cheers] :Jumpy:

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #25 on:** 20 August 2016, 15:31:28 »

Quote from: Daryk on 18 August 2016, 20:09:16

The simplest thing to do is simply re-issue the fighter design. It works now that they restored the ability of fighters to carry cargo.

That's what I've been doing for a while in my games. The MkVII is simply a Small Craft, which is built as a fighter.

Daryk · « **Reply #26 on:** 20 August 2016, 16:32:38 »

At this point, I'm hoping for an XTRO: Small Craft or some such.

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #27 on:** 21 August 2016, 20:27:20 »

Quote from: Daryk on 20 August 2016, 16:32:38

At this point, I'm hoping for an XTRO: Small Craft or some such.

We could do with that.

Taron Storm · « **Reply #28 on:** 22 August 2016, 20:57:43 »

Quote from: Daryk on 20 August 2016, 16:32:38

At this point, I'm hoping for an XTRO: Small Craft or some such.

+1

Daryk · « **Reply #29 on:** 22 March 2017, 18:14:35 »

In lieu of waiting for the aforementioned XTRO, I commissioned the esteemed Matt Plog to draw me an action shot of a more anatomically correct Mark VII (i.e., large enough to actually contain that cargo bay). Enjoy!

boilerman · « **Reply #30 on:** 23 March 2017, 23:46:42 »

Nice work Daryk. Your pdf really makes me wonder about the size of aerospace fighter and small craft bays.

Daryk · « **Reply #31 on:** 24 March 2017, 17:59:08 »

Thanks! And yes, bays must be huge... I think it helps explain the low density of at least some of the Jumpships and Dropships.

boilerman · « **Reply #32 on:** 25 March 2017, 16:21:18 »

I did a very rough calculation of the density of a Nimitz class carrier years ago. I came up with a rough estimate of 0.1 to 0.2 tons per cubic meter, fully loaded. Use the low estimate and BT DropShips have only about a tenth the density. I think BT ships have much too low density.

Just my opinion. Please excuse the threadjack.

Daryk · « **Reply #33 on:** 25 March 2017, 17:45:12 »

No worries... As far as the NIMITZ (my ship back in the day), part of the difference is going to be the fission plants (yes, plural) and their attendant lead shielding, plus high strength steel for just about everything else. Also, the structure required to resist the pounding a ship hull takes from the sea is a completely different beast than that necessary to survive reentry and spaceflight in general.